Expelled – well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see

I had low expectations due to the raving disgust of most reviewers, but having seen it, I can now see that their reviews lacked any objective evaluation of the film’s artistry, style and content. Since the film is well made, I suspect that the real problem is that the movie conflicts with many reviewers’ world view, and they are offended and unable to properly evaluate or appreciate the movie for what it is – a fairly well made documentary of ideological hegemony and persecution in science and academia.

The movie spent most of it’s time merely documenting the systematic bias and draconian measures used to censure those who question Darwinian orthodoxy, and it also introduces us to the logical consequences of Darwinism in history, linking it to eugenics and Nazism. What it documents is both frightening and pathetic.

What I enjoyed about the movie:

The consistent insertion of old black and white footage in-between the color segments of the interviews. This technique was mostly humorous, providing sly, satirical commentary on what was being said. It also helped break up the documentary and keep it fresh.

The mostly respectful and straightforward representation of the notorious atheists and anti-IDists. Perhaps the ID antagonists were not told exactly in what context their interviews would be presented, but their ideas were not misrepresented, or twisted or taken out of context. I suspect that deceiving them produced more honest answers, rather than the typical patronizing scorn they exude when discussing ID.

The soundtrack – the music won’t win any awards perhaps, but they were very good at creating mood. A couple of scenes were made much more memorable due to the music. Good job.

The movie tracked Ben’s supposed investigative process. Instead of being a screed from start to end, it is presented as an honest search for the truth, and the progress of the questions Ben pursued and presented was logical and unforced, and felt relaxed and natural in its unfolding.

Almost everyone interviewed on both sides of the issue were highly educated and well spoken. Both the IDists and the atheist/evolutionists come across as being educated at the best institutions, and the IDists seemed particularly articulate (of course). One of my favorites was Dr. DavidBerlinksi, who had some really insightful things to say, and was a bit of a curmudgeon.

Good editing of interview footage: Good editing down to the essentials, not a lot of useless words. I could, however, seen less of Ben walking around in the various locations, though his sneakered-suit ambling did provide some comic relief.

There were some though-provoking one liners. I forgot most, but will fill them in after I take my friends and see it again. Things like

ID, Creationism, and Agnostic Jews: It was nice to see a little explanation of just why ID is not "microwaved Creationism" – the inclusion of many agnostic and irreligious Jews like Berlinksi (who also wrote The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions) spoke pretty well to the fact that Creationists are NOT running or bankrolling ID, despite the fact that enraged atheists can’t tell the difference.

Enraged atheists: It was pretty obvious that almost to a man, the atheists and anti-IDists (all men of great academic and intellectual prowess) were angry, derisive, haughty, and the movie’s allusions to totalitarianism seemed palatable in the anti-IDists’ comments, even though they would probably deny such extremism resided in their petty God-hating hearts.

The few quibbles I have with the movie:

Ridicule: The movie did stoop to a little bit of ridicule when discussing the theories of abiogenesis and panspermia – "Crystals and aliens? Is this science?" The scientist he was interviewing was trying to explain how self-replicating RNA molecules may have formed on the back of crystals, but Ben wasn’t getting it. However, ridicule was kept to a minimum in the movie, which was good.

Darwin and Hitler: The timeline for the introduction of Darwin’s ideas and Hitler’s Germany were not presented clearly. Also, I could not figure out who the tourguide was in the Nazi death chamber, and why we should believe her when she claimed that Nazism was heavily influenced by and motived by social Darwinism. Thirdly, the link between Darwin and Hitler, though historically obvious and documented, was not well enough documented in this film, perhaps because that is a whole other film!

Planned Parenthood, racism and eugenics. This link was inserted, and barely documented, and it’s importance was not that well explained, except to say that Darwinism has consequences beyond science, and it is clear that evolutionary defenders who ignore this show their lack of objectivity and self-deception in recognizing the impact of ideas, and the links between scientific and social paradigms. They are being willfully ignorant in order to protect their belief system.

There was a nice quote from The Descent of Man that showed very clearly that Darwin Understood the Social Application of his Theory. Berlinkski did make it clear however that, while belief in Darwinism or evolution don’t inevitably lead to cruel eugenics or Nazism on it’s own (it’s not sufficient), it is a necessary component.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed….

CONCLUSION

The main point of the movie had little to do with evolution. It had to do with free inquiry in science and academia, the hubris and bullying of those who believe that evolution can’t be questioned by sane or intelligent people, and the risks to freedom that such oppressive thought policing creates.

It is a pity that most of the people who need to see this most, supposedly open-minded evolutionists, won’t see it. They’ll make excuses about how it is a Michael Moore-ish hit piece (which it is not), or that they won’t dignify such anti-science polemics. However, it is very true that poorly answered important questions will not go away, and this movie respectfully and humorously asks a lot of good questions, and would be the basis of great discussions – except that those running or captive to the evolutionary hegemony are not ready to have their faith questioned – for now, they will hide in ridicule and self-reinforcing assertions. Too bad for them.

Perhaps, like children of religious parents, they will one day question their faith and make up their own minds honestly, rather than being afraid to entertain conclusions other than what they’ve been told by authorities. As Guillermo Gonzales said, he has hope because good scientists don’t like to be told what to believe, and will defend the right of open inquiry. We can only hope that such heroes still exist in sufficient number.

55 Responses

Anticipating success with their feature film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Producers Mark Mathis, Logan Craft and Walt Ruloff have already leaked a teaser trailer for the film's sequel. Their "teach the controversy" slogan seemed to work well in getting the general public to believe that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative scientific theory to Evolution, so the team has moved on to promoting other theories that they feel are being suppressed by the scientific community. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed tells of how Sex Theory has thrived unchallenged in the ivory towers of academia, as the explanation for how new babies are created. Proponents of Stork Theory claim that "Big Sex" has been suppressing their claim that babies are delivered by storks. Furthermore, Stork Theory proponents warn of the serious moral dangers posed by teaching children that sex has a function. They point out that evil dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao all believed in Sex Theory, and they may have even had sex themselves.
There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.
Unlike the original Stork Theory, the modern, sophisticated "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) merely points out that there are gaps in the orthodox Sex Theory, and that current sonogram imaging is unreliable. Moreover ATT does not specify that babies are necessarily brought by storks but by "large birds unspecified" (although many individual ATT theorists PRIVATELY believe it is a stork).

Their "teach the controversy" slogan seemed to work well in getting the general public to believe that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative scientific theory to Evolution,
Interestingly, 'teach the controversy' was not mentioned once in the movie.
While this may appear to be a witty satire poking holes in the documentary, I see it as derisive mockery, which is easier than questioning evolution. But I understand, not everyone can distance themselves from their beliefs to question them. The movie was nicely done.

"Thirdly, the link between Darwin and Hitler, though historically obvious and documented, was not well enough documented in this film, perhaps because that is a whole other film!"
Seeker, here is a republican Intelligent Design / Creationist proponent with DOCUMENTED ties to Hitler and the Nazi party. <a href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=tony+zirkle&quot; rel="nofollow">Enjoy.

"Two of the issues that have been flaming the controversies over public education are the evolution/creation debate and indoctrinating kindergarteners that homosexual domestic partners constitute merely one more acceptable, alternative lifestyle. Our public schools should not be exploiting our elementary school children to become pawns in these highly emotional, divisive debates."

Perhaps the movie's points would be better made if the claims of "expulsion" were not so readily disputed. For example, to cite as evidence that Richard von Sternberg was "expelled" the fact that he was ordered to return the keys that he used to access private areas of his workplace while not mentioning that he was asked to turn in his keys because the locks had been changed out with new locks that opened based upon a coded ID badge — which von Sternberg was given as a replacement — seems, to me, to be somewhat dishonest.

Additionally, I have observed that individuals who use the term "darwinists" in reference to individuals who accept the validity of the theory of evolution are often themselves demonstrably ill-informed regarding the actual theory of evolution. This is actually evident merely from the usage of the terms "Darwinists" or "Darwnisim": individuals who have actually studied the theory of evolution are well-aware that the theory has been revised and developed significantly since the time of Charles Darwin and, as such, referring to the theory by the name of the author of its original conceieved form is as inappropriate as referring to the study of physics as "Newtonism".
Also, regarding the author of this posting's claim that acceptance of the theory of evolution is a "necessary" component for a policy of eugenics; can the author cite evidence that the Spartans of Ancient Greece applied the principles of the theory of evolution as a basis for their historically documented practice of eugenics?

are often themselves demonstrably ill-informed regarding the actual theory of evolution. This is actually evident merely from the usage of the terms "Darwinists" or "Darwnisim": individuals who have actually studied the theory of evolution are well-aware that the theory has been revised and developed significantly since the time of Charles Darwin
This is a red herring. First, the evolutionary model(s) has been revised since the original days of 'Darwinian gradualism' because the fossil record and genetics don't seem to support it well at all. The more data we get, the more data fails to fit the model. While some would argue that this is how science works, science also discards lousy models that predict so poorly and inhibit real discoveries (see Darwinism Impeding Science), as I discussed in Evolutionary Trees – In Flux or Broken and Bogus?.
It has also been revised becasue the philogenetic trees based on morphology were often wrong, and are supposedly being corrected by genetics (though I predict such genetic trees will be almost as uncertain and messy).
The changes required by the appearance of new data are often not minor at all, and therefore imply huge misunderstandings or a bad model, as I related in Fossil evidence sends human evolution theory into tailspin.
Second, and more importantly, the arguments have become more esoteric and convoluted over time, so that only someone who spends hours upon hours can actually understand the mental gymnastics involved in trying to defend evolution. After being defeated in the simpler areas of science, evolutionary defenders have to keep retreating to more and more complex sciences to try to defend their faith in evolution, and it's no wonder people can't or don't follow them into the maze of hand-waving.
I tried to dispel some of the evolutionary cloud of impressive B.S. in 13 Misconceptions About Evolution, and went further in describing why so many people believe it in Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.
People fight for it so vociferously not only because they believe (falsesly) that it has been proven ('as surely as gravity'), but because they percieve a biblical world view, with a Creator, as allowing superstition and religion into science. What they fail to recognize is that
(a) there IS a working model for how faith and science should complement one another, without improper intermingling (see Reconciling Faith and Science and Faith and Reason – Link Dump), and having an all or none view of this may be incorrect,
(b) A Christian world view was held by many of our greatest historical scienctists, and modern science succeeded BECAUSE of this view, not despite it (see The biblical origins of science)
(c) they are clinging to it, not just for scientific reasons, but for emotional reasons – they NEED it to be true, because living without an answer for origins, or having to consider that the biblical God might have created things, is threatening to them.

DIMENSIO WROTE: regarding the author of this posting's claim that acceptance of the theory of evolution is a "necessary" component for a policy of eugenics; can the author cite evidence that the Spartans of Ancient Greece applied the principles of the theory of evolution as a basis for their historically documented practice of eugenics?
Actually, that's not my claim, that's Berlinski's. I found this claim interesting, and he did not back it up. But I think he was saying that it was necessary for the rise and success of Nazism, not eugenics. We all know that eugenics was already around, but the scientific validity that Darwinism gave it (and as I said, Darwin Understood the Social Application of his Theory, even if he did not advocate such) was what formed a strong foundation for the bold and murderous eugenics that Hitler brought to a level that the Romans did not even approach.
BTW, regarding Expelled Exposed, while their claims are worth following up on, reading their material reveals many of their own errors, stretching of the truth, and misrepresentation of the film, so I would NOT take everything they say as gospel either.

We all know that eugenics was already around, but the scientific validity that Darwinism gave it (and as I said, Darwin Understood the Social Application of his Theory, even if he did not advocate such) was what formed a strong foundation for the bold and murderous eugenics that Hitler brought to a level that the Romans did not even approach.
I am aware that Charles Darwin recognized the possible conclusion that may be drawn by some that eliminating the "weak" members of society — or at the very least neglecting them — could result in a stronger overall species, which is likely why he referred to engaging in such a practice as "evil". As science is merely descriptive, and not pro- or prescriptive, it is illogical to claim that any scientific theory logically justified any human action.BTW, regarding Expelled Exposed, while their claims are worth following up on, reading their material reveals many of their own errors, stretching of the truth, and misrepresentation of the film, so I would NOT take everything they say as gospel either.
Please provide examples of such "errors", "stretching of the truth" and "misrepresentation of the film", especially as it pertains to the rebuttals to the claims of "expulsion" of the interview subjects.
I will note also that you are continuing to used the term "Darwinism" which, as I have stated, is an archaic term whose usage demonstrates a general unfamiliarity with the theory of evolution.

it is illogical to claim that any scientific theory logically justified any human action
Tell that to Hitler and Marx. But this is not just a case of pure science being abused or used for good, like nuclear energy. Strictly speaking, it's not really even a science, but a theory at best.
The fact that this theory had such social implications, and that, without any other moral framework (see Can Darwinism Provide a Positive Moral Framework?), logically led to such a view, is obvious. I am not saying that it is morally or ethically justifiable, but it is LOGICAL.
I mean, given that the survival of the fittest is true, why NOT apply it to social engineering? In fact, it may be criminally negligent to allow future suffering by NOT eliminating the weak. Hitler clearly thought this way, and his ideas were legitimized by the pseudo science of Darwinism (in his own mind).
Ideas have consequences.
Regarding the fabrications of Expelled Exposed, I will do a few, but I am not interested in spending all of my time arguing with nit-pickers and evolutionary zealots.

Tell that to Hitler and Marx.
I have never claimed that Hitler was logical or rational. Additionally, how does Marx relate to the theory of evolution? But this is not just a case of pure science being abused or used for good, like nuclear energy. Strictly speaking, it's not really even a science, but a theory at best.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Claiming that a scientific theory is not science does not make syntactical sense.The fact that this theory had such social implications, and that, without any other moral framework (see Can Darwinism Provide a Positive Moral Framework?), logically led to such a view, is obvious. I am not saying that it is morally or ethically justifiable, but it is LOGICAL.
Declaring that your position is "logical" is not a rational substitute for demonstrating that your position is logical. You must still actually show a logical connection between the initial premise and what you assert is the logical conclusion.I mean, given that the survival of the fittest is true, why NOT apply it to social engineering?
Even if "survival of the fittest" were not a distorted oversimplification of the fundamental principle of the theory of evolution, suggesting such an application is an appeal to the naturalistic, or "is-ought", fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an observation of an event is used to justify the forced application of that event in another circumstance. In other words, that a process is observed in one system — such as a biological system does not rationally justify applying that process by force in another system — such as a social system. There may or may not be a rational justification for such an application in a system, but the mere fact that the process occurs as a consequence of the normal operation in a different system is not such a justification. In fact, it may be criminally negligent to allow future suffering by NOT eliminating the weak.
Such a conclusion could never be derived from the theory of evolution. Evolution, like all other scientific theories, merely describes how a specific aspect of the universe occurs to produce an observed set of results. Neither it, nor any other scientific theory, constitute a logical proscription or prescription for any human behavior. As such, a determination that an action is "criminally negligent" must require an appeal to a philosophy other than science, meaning that the theory of evolution can never lead to it.
Additionally, even if it could be determined — though another, non-scientific philosophy — that it is, in fact "criminally negligent" to allow "weak" individuals to survive rather than eliminating them, a standard must be devised to determine the specific characteristics to be used to distinguish "weak" individuals from "non-weak" individuals in an absolute sense. As the theory of evolution does not address "weakness" and "strength" in an absolute sense, such a standard could not be derived from evolution and, as such, would require a different field of study. Hitler clearly thought this way, and his ideas were legitimized by the pseudo science of Darwinism (in his own mind).
Even if Hitler believed that his ideas were "legitimized" by the theory of evolution, that would not itself demonstrate that the theory of evolution legitimized his actions, as there exists the likely possibility that Hitler's justification of his actions was not rational.
Additionally, claiming that the theory of evolution is a "pseudo science" does not demonstrate that it is actually a "pseudo science". Moreover, your continued usage of the archaic term "Darwinism" when making reference to the theory of evolution is puzzling; are you choosing to ignore the fact that the theory has been refined significantly since Darwin's time?Ideas have consequences.
I disagree with this assessment. I believe that actions have consequences. While ideas may influence actions, the actions themselves are directly responsible for consequence. Moreover, you have not demonstrated that any specific undesirable action was actually logically influenced by the theory of evolution.
I suppose that it could be argued that ideas — being the result of cascading events in a brain — are themselves actions, however that merely transfers the debate into a semantic dispute.Regarding the fabrications of Expelled Exposed, I will do a few, but I am not interested in spending all of my time arguing with nit-pickers and evolutionary zealots.
Then I shall await your presentation.

You must still actually show a logical connection between the initial premise and what you assert is the logical conclusion.
True, and that was done superficially but well in the movie and many others have done it well recently – see the links at The Historical Connection from Darwin to Hitler

I believe that actions have consequences. While ideas may influence actions, the actions themselves are directly responsible for consequence.
How about this then. Beliefs (in certain ideas) have consequences that can often be forseen because the actions they engender are logical, if one understands human nature.
So, Darwin understood that social darwinism was a likely result of believing his ideas. If everyone believes a certain other race is inferior, that will lead to negative consequences.
Ideas (once believed) can lead to liberation or bondage, to kindness or cruelty, and the seeds of these actions are often in the ideas themselves, not just a result of how they are used. Esp. ideas that have to do with a person's world view, that is, answers to such questions as
– Where did we come from?
– What is God like?
– What is man like?
– What is wrong with society?
– What happens after we die?
– What is the source(s) of morality and truth?

True, and that was done superficially but well in the movie and many others have done it well recently – see the links at The Historical Connection from Darwin to Hitler
I have yet to observe any logical explanation demonstrating that a starting position of "all extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry that diversified through a combination of the processes of inheritable alterations in offspring, reproductive selection pressure relative to environmental conditions and genetic drift" can be used to derive the conclusion "killing all individuals of Jewish descent is a morally justifiable action".So, Darwin understood that social darwinism was a likely result of believing his ideas.
Darwin recognized that some might attempt to use his ideas to justify making the overall species better. Whether he understood how such an application is actually infeasable, due to the variables involved, is not clear however he recognized such an application to be "evil", and thus warned against it. This does not mean that his theory is false, nor does it mean that his theory logically leads to such actions. Rather, it means that Darwin recognized that the observations that he made in nature did not inherently translate to a beneficial social policy.

I have yet to observe any logical explanation
Perhaps you should listen to Darwin himself explain it, as quoted above, or in my post Darwin Understood:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.
– Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham dated July 3, 1881
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.
– Charles Darwin, from The Descent of Man

Once you believe that certain races are less evolved, all you have to do is derive some objective measure to support your contention. How about economic success? How about hair or eye color? How about intelligence of physical abilities? How about which races look more like the apes, with flatter noses and dark eyes?This does not mean that his theory is false, nor does it mean that his theory logically leads to such actions.
I partially agree. This alone does not falsify evolution. HOWEVER, as I have explained in the posts below(sorry for all of the links, but I have written a lot on this over the past years), since all truth is integrated, since it describes one integrated reality, if an idea integrates poorly with accepted rubrics from other disciplines, or integrates well with rejected rubrics, it is suspected of being false.
Darwinism integrates nicely with eugenics, with the devaluation of human life, and with an atheistic world view, and not so well with thermodynamics, observed genetics, or information theory, to name a few.
Another widely held principle is that truth leads to liberation, while lies lead to bondage and cruelty. The obvious and repeated logical and historical links between Darwinism and the cruelties of Nazism, atheism and it's expression in governments, not to mention it's role in turning back racial equality in Civil War Reconstruction all indicate to me that it should be more closely inspected for fault.
Again, these things are indicators, not final proofs. However, to ignore these is to be willfully blind to these indicators, imo.

Perhaps you should listen to Darwin himself explain it, as quoted above, or in my post Darwin Understood:
Darwin was not advocating the imposition of a system of "forced natural selection". Rather, he was describing what he observed as an event of such selection occurring on its own as a consequence of human events, without the selection itself being an intended process.
That Darwin referred to actively selecting against the "weak and helpless" as an "overwhelming evil" is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any claim that Darwin personally advocated an imposition of "Social Darwinism" is fundamentally irrational.Once you believe that certain races are less evolved, all you have to do is derive some objective measure to support your contention. How about economic success? How about hair or eye color? How about intelligence of physical abilities? How about which races look more like the apes, with flatter noses and dark eyes?
Please define "less evolved" in the context of the theory of evolution. Please explain how economic success, hair or eye colour, intelligence or any particular physical ability would make an organism "more" or "less" evolved. To do this, you will need to explain the means by which "more" or "less" evolved is determined within the context of the theory of evolution. You will then also need to explain how the theory of evolution would rationally justify forcibly exterminating such individuals; this may be difficult as the theory of evolution does not actually justify any specific action or inaction.I partially agree. This alone does not falsify evolution. HOWEVER, as I have explained in the posts below(sorry for all of the links, but I have written a lot on this over the past years), since all truth is integrated, since it describes one integrated reality, if an idea integrates poorly with accepted rubrics from other disciplines, or integrates well with rejected rubrics, it is suspected of being false.
Thus far you have not demonstrated that the conclusions that you allege can be derived from the theory of evolution are actually rational. Additionally, you are attempting to appeal to consequence, which is a logical fallacy.Darwinism integrates nicely with eugenics, with the devaluation of human life, and with an atheistic world view, and not so well with thermodynamics, observed genetics, or information theory, to name a few.
Please explain and justify all of the above. Explain how the theory of evolution does not integrate with thermodynamics, genetics or information theory. Explain how the theory of evolution integrates with the "devaluation of human life" and "an atheistic world view", and explain how such an integration could suggest that the theory of evolution is false.Another widely held principle is that truth leads to liberation, while lies lead to bondage and cruelty.
Please demonstrate that this principle is universally correct. The obvious and repeated logical and historical links between Darwinism and the cruelties of Nazism, atheism and it's expression in governments, not to mention it's role in turning back racial equality in Civil War Reconstruction all indicate to me that it should be more closely inspected for fault.
Please explain. Show specifically how the theory of evolution — which is an explanation of the process by which extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry — logically leads to or justifies the extermination or subjugation of one subset of the species homo sapiens sapiens by another subset of the same species. Be specific.
Thus far you have asserted a logical connection. However, you have not provided any demonstration of this logical connection.
Please show that, if the theory of evolution is correct, it is rational and logical to exterminate individuals of Jewish descent. Demonstrate this while assuming no other specific truths; that is, show that the theory of evolution alone can serve as a rational basis for a decision to eliminate Jewish individuals regardless of any other views held by an individual.
Once you demonstrate this, explain how the theory of evolution providing such a rational justification would show that the theory of evolution is false without employing to the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence.Again, these things are indicators, not final proofs. However, to ignore these is to be willfully blind to these indicators, imo.
You have yet to demonstrate that the "indicators" that you allege are actually logical derivations of the theory.

Great Post and great blog! Thanks for referring me to your blog from SFPulpit.
Fwiw, I saw "Expelled" on opening night in a full theatre and there were two rounds of applause. That warmed my ID-Creationist heart.

That Darwin referred to actively selecting against the “weak and helpless” as an “overwhelming evil” is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any claim that Darwin personally advocated an imposition of “Social Darwinism” is fundamentally irrational.
No one is claiming that he supported it, only that he saw it as a logical and likely implementation of this theory in the human realm – and of course, the quotes above show that he *believed* that some races were less evolved, and that they would probably be conquered because they were by definition, less fit. He didn’t forsee Hitler, but he understood that if nature worked this way, human evolution probably would as well.Please define “less evolved” in the context of the theory of evolution….To do this, you will need to explain the means by which “more” or “less” evolved is determined within the context of the theory of evolution.
Well, since I don’t believe in evolution, I don’t believe in “less evolved humans.” But my point is, once you identify some supposedly scientific criteria, as Darwin did in the quote below (and above), you can now ‘justify’ eugenics, which is exactly what Hitler did – it’s obvious, and was to Darwin:

Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is!The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.

In this case, it seems that Darwin sees the more civilized Europe as more fit – so perhaps his criteria is success in warfare makes you more evolved!
But I just mentioned the many criteria above as possible examples. I don’t *believe* it, but many could.
So if I was an evolutionist, I would ask myself – what makes one species or race more evolutionary fit or advanced than another? Disease resistance? Virility? Physical strength? Morphologic dissimilarity from primates? Intelligence?
Disease resistance is the simplest. So, anyone with genetic diseases is probably a detriment to the gene pool. Sterilize them for their own good, the good of their children, and the good of mankind.
Virility? Perhaps men with low sperm counts should be discouraged from mating.
Morphology? Anyone with a more pronounced brow ridge, and shorter stature, and a more primitive culture is probably more like the ape ancestors. In fact, Darwin himself though this way about negroes and Australian pygmies:

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

You see, racism and eugenics are natural conclusions from Darwinism, even Darwin thought so. And Darwin was not condeming this, he thought it natural, even if he did not forsee the specific cruelties of Hitler.
Does this mean Darwinism is wrong? Not necessarily, but the relationship between them is so close, it’s impossible to miss, and it is important in evaluating the impact AND truth or falseness of evolution.Explain how the theory of evolution does not integrate with thermodynamics, genetics or information theory. Explain how the theory of evolution integrates with the “devaluation of human life” and “an atheistic world view”, and explain how such an integration could suggest that the theory of evolution is false.
These have all been done at length by myself and others. I apologize for not having the time to recapitulate it all. Some relevant posts:Quantifying the Statistical Challenge to EvolutionScience’s Third WaveThe Second Law of Thermodynamics13 Misconceptions About EvolutionDarwinism Impeding ScienceEvolution as a World ViewUltraconserved Phenotype Defies Macro-evolutionTen Major Flaws of EvolutionMore Genetic Evidence Against EvolutionViruses, Transposons, and CreationismAnother widely held principle is that truth leads to liberation, while lies lead to bondage and cruelty. Please demonstrate that this principle is universally correct.
Carl Sagan wrote an entire book on this subject, about how science provides objective truth, which can liberate people from the darkness of religion and superstition. I’m not sure how to prove it, since it seems self-evident.
But here’s how I would approach it. There is a famous aphorism which says “the essence of insanity is not seeing reality as it is.” So, if I believe that storks bring babies, in the real world, that is going to hurt me if i don’t connect sex with pregnancy. Once I see things as they are, and understand how they work, I can maximize my productivity, pleasure, and performance, and avoid costly mistakes.
I guess my argument goes like this:
1. ALL misunderstandings of how reality works lead to mistakes and losses when applied.
2. Darwinism leads to mistakes and losses when applied, esp. to science and social policy.
3. Darwinism is a misunderstanding of how reality works.Please explain. Show specifically how the theory of evolution — which is an explanation of the process by which extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry — logically leads to or justifies the extermination or subjugation of one subset of the species homo sapiens sapiens by another subset of the same species. Be specific.
I doubt it will matter what I write, since you will find fault, but here goes.
My assumptions about what evolution proposes:
– all life, including animals and man, arose from a common ancestor/ancestors through descent with modification, advanced by natural selection
– the more genetically fit survived, the less fit did not
– survival is a good thing, as is the dying off of the less fit, since their genes ‘polluted’ the gene pool, weakening all (though perhaps they added to the diversity of the gene pool)
– humans arose like other animals, and are, biologically speaking, just like the animals
Now, here’s the steps that are easily taken, and are taken by those like Dawkins and Hitler (I had to mention them in the same breath ;)
1. Science places no extra value on humans over animals, since it does not make such judgements
2. Since humans evolved from apes, it stands to reason that some humans may be more evolved than others – that is, more fit
3. Nature eliminates the less fit, which benefits the species in general
4. If we help nature along by scientifically determining who is less fit, this is good for humanity as a whole
5. Since humans are really just animals, killing off weak humans is like killing off weak cattle to help maintain the herd.
See how easy that flows? A 10-year old could make that connection, but evolutionists can’t because they have an emotional investment in evolution as part of their worldview. It HAS to be true and OK.
What scientific principle would you use, then to discourage sterilization of the weak and infirm, or even their incineration in ovens? This all seems very logical, even moral from the big picture.Please show that, if the theory of evolution is correct, it is rational and logical to exterminate individuals of Jewish descent.
Let me ask you. How would you determine the fitness of a human? Whatever measure you use, I would argue that you could then conclude that such individuals were less fit, and therefore, less evolved. Then, using the logic above, you could try to justify helping evolution along, for the good of humanity.
Somehow, Hitler decided that they were genetic mongrels putrefying the human gene pool. I don’t believe it, but Hitler did. And he was being logical about the application of Darwinism, even if his criteria for choosing what was fit or not was questionable.
I am not saying that he was right – quite the opposite.
But what I am arguing is that Darwinism leads logically and inevitably to such things without the imposition of Christian morality. And besides all that, such easy integration with such cruelties as eugenics and racism makes it suspicious.Once you demonstrate this, explain how the theory of evolution providing such a rational justification would show that the theory of evolution is false without employing to the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence.
As I have said, this alone does not PROVE that evolution is not true. It’s incompatibility with the fossil record, common rules of genetics, lack of testability, and other scientific objections (like it’s statistical impossibility) are evidence enough that is is unlikely.
But in addition, what I am arguing is that all of reality is integrated, and so theories about that reality should be integrated. This is why, for example, we can merge the disciplines of biology and chemistry into biochemistry, and use that merge to further test and refine the truths found in each – because both are grounded in the same reality, they MUST be integratable.
Not only can hard sciences be integrated, but hard AND soft – so now we’ve got neuropscychology (neurology and psychology) and bio-ethics, for examples.
Now, when a theory like evolution FAILS to integrate well with other soft sciences like ethics, or social theories, but integrates well with such morally evil systems as racism and eugenics, it should be seen immediately as integrating with theories that are out of favor because they are rejected as morally or factually wrong.
It’s not an open and shut case, but another brick in the wall, so to speak.You have yet to demonstrate that the “indicators” that you allege are actually logical derivations of the theory..
I’ve done my best. I don’t have time to write a dissertation, but there are plenty of books on this subject. See:Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State (G.K. Chesterton)From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in GermanyThe Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National SocialismThe Pure Society: From Darwin to HitlerWar Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master RaceHitler’s Professors: Second Edition

Isn't the whole premise, or bottom line of pro-evolutionistas, is that all is a giant cosmic accident, and therefore no God involved(no God at all actually),that life then has no meaning, thus no sanctity of life? That is what I absorbed from the film, and from those who post here who are "godhaterists".
That whole line of thinking seems to be evil in nature on its face.

I never said he 'espoused' eugenics, but that he understood this to be the logical outworking of his theory, and he understood that it could also be applied to national warfare and conquest.
He also clearly believed that some races of humans were less evolved and 'more savage.' So while Darwin understood that social darwinism was a logical extension of his theory (though he may not have supported that application of it), modern evolutionists are willingly blind to this obvious conclusion.
And Hitler was not blind to it either, but it supported his view perfectly, as it did the imperialist governments who wanted to colonize and enslave the more 'savage races.' NOte that Darwin thought that the Australian and the negro were somewhere between the Caucasian (the pinnacle of civilization and evolution) and the baboon.
Obviously, his own theory supported a racist view of non-whites as less evolved.
The point, again, is NOT that darwinism inevitably leads to eugenics or social darwinism, but rather, that
a. these practices most certainly do flow logically from darwinism, even darwin saw it, though his modern day devotees refuse to see it
b. historical people like Hitler most certainly did rely on as a scientific rationale for their crimes
c. modern darwinists mock, demean, and persecute those who question darwinsism.
I would say all three of these points are indisputable.

BTW, note also that Darwin uses the word 'exterminate' – he understood that the evolution of man would REQUIRE him to actively kill less evolved races. If that's not eugenics, you are B L I N D.
He's not encouraging it, it's just how survival of the fittest works. Now that we understand how nature works, the step to helping it along is easy. Hitler's eugenics is an easy step from there, as I have noted many times.

BTW, note also that Darwin uses the word 'exterminate' – he understood that the evolution of man would REQUIRE him to actively kill less evolved races. If that's not eugenics, you are B L I N D.

Darwin, in <cite>Descent of Man</cite>:

With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on Natural Selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of Natural Selection. The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through Natural Selection as one of the most important elements on the social instincts.
— Charles Darwin in that same book, Descent of Man

seeker:

He's not encouraging it, it's just how survival of the fittest works. Now that we understand how nature works, the step to helping it along is easy.

"Now that we understand how nature works"? That's backward. We've been breeding animals since the Stone Age. Darwin's great insight was that nature breeds for certain traits like humans do.
"the step to helping it along is easy". Genocide was not invented in Darwin's tim; it's been going on throughout recorded history, not to mention ancient legend. According to the Bible, even Moses engaged in it:

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
— Numbers 31:15-18

Beautiful! Seeker = Toast. But don't expect him to concede your point Robin. He's a creationist and thus he is incapable of conceding a point in a conversation about Darwin. It's against his religion to see reason on this issue.

Genocide was not invented in Darwin's time
And no one has said that darwin invented it. He just gave it a scientific justification, for those who saw that 'extermination' (Darwin's word) might benefit the species by pushing nature forward. Again, he did not support eugenics, but he saw it as possible extension of his theory which could be adopted by those without ethics or morals (and perhaps Christian ones specifically).the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of Natural Selection.
I guess Darwin never foresaw the modern day liberal who despises having children, and who would murder their own out of convenience via abortion. Looks like the more intelligent, at least by passing on their genes to progeny, are religious people.
Seriously, he thinks that sympathy is somehow selected for? That's a convenient way to insert morality into the efficient and cruel natural selection process.We've been breeding animals since the Stone Age. Darwin's great insight was that nature breeds for certain traits like humans do.
Um, while natural selection may occur within the human population, Darwin's real contribution was to suggest that some races are less evolved, more apelike, and inferior, and would be exterminated over time. And this perspective fed right into the existing eugenic impulses of man. Fits like a glove.
Now, we are merely helping nature along.
BTW, in the case of Moses, it looks like he was stopping a plague, not eliminating the less fit. Try again.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.
– Charles Darwin, from The Descent of Man

That statement, in context:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin is certainly not espousing eugenics; he is extrapolating that the gap between humans and primates will grow wider in the future.

I guess Darwin never foresaw the modern day liberal who despises having children, and who would murder their own out of convenience via abortion. Looks like the more intelligent, at least by passing on their genes to progeny, are religious people.

Let me see if I understand your logic: Darwin says intelligent people with good educations succeed better and leave more progeny. Modern liberals hate children, so they abort their pregancies. All religious people oppose abortion, hence they leave more progeny. Therefore, religious conservatives are more successful, educated, and intelligent than other people.

This is flame bait, right? You must be trolling.

Um, while natural selection may occur within the human population, Darwin's real contribution was to suggest that some races are less evolved, more apelike, and inferior, and would be exterminated over time.

Before Darwin left on his journey on H.M.S. Beagle, the British were exterminating Aborigines in Tasmania. They didn’t need the theory of natural selection to think the Abos were inferior, animalistic savages needing extermination.

Darwin didn’t invent racism. Furthermore, Darwin was one of the least racist men of the Victorian age. He was an abolitionist who abhorred slavery. He understood, and his work demonstrated, that all of humanity had a mutual common ancestry — a powerful argument against racism. (Perhaps this is why “Prinzipelles zur Säuberung der öffentlichen Bücherein” (1935) [Principles for the Cleansing of Public Libraries] banned Origin of Species to be committed to Nazi bonfires.)

No such "mass of evidence" exists. It is a collection of spotty data, coupled with some really elegant theorizing, grounded in little more than wishful thinking. There is literally very little "there" there.

“The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.” — Richard Dawkins, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”

I guess Darwin never foresaw the modern day liberal who despises having children, and who would murder their own out of convenience via abortion. Looks like the more intelligent, at least by passing on their genes to progeny, are religious people.

Let me see if I understand your logic: Darwin says intelligent people with good educations succeed better and leave more progeny. Modern liberals hate children, so they abort their pregancies. All religious people oppose abortion, hence they leave more progeny. Therefore, religious conservatives are more successful, educated, and intelligent than other people.
This is flame bait, right? You must be trolling.

Um, while natural selection may occur within the human population, Darwin’s real contribution was to suggest that some races are less evolved, more apelike, and inferior, and would be exterminated over time.

Before Darwin left on his journey on H.M.S. Beagle, the British were exterminating Aborigines in Tasmania. They didn’t need the theory of natural selection to think the Abos were inferior, animalistic savages needing extermination.
Darwin didn’t invent racism. Furthermore, Darwin was one of the least racist men of the Victorian age. He was an abolitionist who abhorred slavery. He understood, and his work demonstrated, that all of humanity had a mutual common ancestry — a powerful argument against racism. (Perhaps this is why “Prinzipelles zur Säuberung der öffentlichen Bücherein” (1935) [Principles for the Cleansing of Public Libraries] banned Origin of Species to be committed to Nazi bonfires.)

No one is claiming that he supported it, only that he saw it as a logical and likely implementation of this theory in the human realm
As Darwin himself suggested that such an implementation is “evil”, however, it is not likely that he himself saw such an implementation as logical.Well, since I don’t believe in evolution, I don’t believe in “less evolved humans.”
Acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution is not required to address my inquiry. But my point is, once you identify some supposedly scientific criteria, as Darwin did in the quote below (and above), you can now ‘justify’ eugenics, which is exactly what Hitler did – it’s obvious, and was to Darwin:
Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is!The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.
Then please explain how, logically, races can be identified as “inferior” based solely upon the conclusions of the theory of evolution, without appealing to any other, unrelated, beliefs or views.In this case, it seems that Darwin sees the more civilized Europe as more fit – so perhaps his criteria is success in warfare makes you more evolved!
This may well have been Darwin’s opinion, based upon his assessment of the logical conclusion of the advancement of Western civilization. I will note again that Darwin was not himself suggesting any course of action; rather, he was predicting the outcome of events that he had observedSo if I was an evolutionist, I would ask myself – what makes one species or race more evolutionary fit or advanced than another? Disease resistance? Virility? Physical strength? Morphologic dissimilarity from primates? Intelligence?
Disease resistance is the simplest. So, anyone with genetic diseases is probably a detriment to the gene pool. Sterilize them for their own good, the good of their children, and the good of mankind.
Please explain how the theory of evolution suggests that any action should be taken for someone’s “own good”, “the goood of their children” or “the good of mankind”. Please also provide an infallible method for determining a predisposition for genetic disorder that results in no false positives or negatives. Please also demonstrate that such an act of sterilization would not have any unforeseen negative consequences as a result of removing a previously unknown beneficial genetic factor from the population or as a result of reducing the overall genetic diversity of the population\.
If you cannot demonstrate all of the above, then your suggestion is not rational within the context of the theory of evolution and your claim that it is logical within the context of the theory of evolution is false.Virility? Perhaps men with low sperm counts should be discouraged from mating.
Why? How does the theory of evolution suggest such a course of action?Morphology? Anyone with a more pronounced brow ridge, and shorter stature, and a more primitive culture is probably more like the ape ancestors.
Please justify this assertion, and explain its relevance to your thesis. In fact, Darwin himself though this way about negroes and Australian pygmies:
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.
Please note that Charles Darwin’s opinions are not the final word on the theory of evolution.You see, racism and eugenics are natural conclusions from Darwinism, even Darwin thought so.
You have yet to demonstrate such a conclusion. Note that Darwin’s opinions do not form the entirety of the theory of evolution; as I have stated repeatedly, the theory of evolution has advanced significantly since the time of Charles Darwin. I find it puzzling that, in spite of being informed of this, you continue to use the incorrect term “Darwinism” when referencing the theory. I cannot understand your continued willful usage of a term known to be incorrect. It is as though you are deliberately attempting to mislead your audience with such terminology. And Darwin was not condeming this, he thought it natural, even if he did not forsee the specific cruelties of Hitler.
If you believe that Darwin did not condemn eugenics, then you have clearly not read the works of Charles Darwin. With reference to “neglecting” the “weak and helpless” as a means of improving the human population, Darwin wrote that it would be “only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil” and that “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind”.Does this mean Darwinism is wrong? Not necessarily, but the relationship between them is so close, it’s impossible to miss, and it is important in evaluating the impact AND truth or falseness of evolution.
It is illogical to consider distaste of an implication for a scientific theory when evaluating its validity. Reality is not obliged to conform to your expectations or desires. Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the implications of the theory of evolution that you claim are actually rational derivations of the theory. You have repeatedly insisted that the theory of evolution is inherently racist, yet you have offered absolutely no explanation of how a conclusion of racism can be derived from the theory itself. Instead, you have relied solely upon the personal opinions of Charles Darwin. You are either unaware that the opinions of Charles Darwin are not the theory of evolution, or you are attempting to conflate the two in an attempt to argue without honesty.These have all been done at length by myself and others. I apologize for not having the time to recapitulate it all. Some relevant posts:
I will examine these at a later time.But here’s how I would approach it. There is a famous aphorism which says “the essence of insanity is not seeing reality as it is.” So, if I believe that storks bring babies, in the real world, that is going to hurt me if i don’t connect sex with pregnancy. Once I see things as they are, and understand how they work, I can maximize my productivity, pleasure, and performance, and avoid costly mistakes.
I guess my argument goes like this:
1. ALL misunderstandings of how reality works lead to mistakes and losses when applied.
2. Darwinism leads to mistakes and losses when applied, esp. to science and social policy.
3. Darwinism is a misunderstanding of how reality works.
It is irrational to conclude that a scientific theory is a “misunderstanding of how reality works” because it results in “mistakes and losses” when applied to social policy. Scientific theories are merely attempts to explain observations within the natural universe. They are not attempts to define coherent social policy, thus it is illogical to apply them to social policy and it is illogical to claim that a theory is false because of consequences that arise when it is applied to social policy.I doubt it will matter what I write, since you will find fault, but here goes.
My assumptions about what evolution proposes:
– all life, including animals and man, arose from a common ancestor/ancestors through descent with modification, advanced by natural selection
This is a very basic explanation, but it should be sufficient.– the more genetically fit survived, the less fit did not
This statement is technically correct, however it should be qualified with the understanding that the factors that constitute what is “genetically fit” are relative, rather than absolute, and that they frequently depend upon specific environmental conditions. That is to say, what constitutes “genetically fit” in one environment is not necessarily “genetically fit” in another. It should also be noted that to say that a subset of a population “survived” merely refers to their genetic traits being expressed with greater frequency — or with total ubiquity — in subsequent populations.– survival is a good thing, as is the dying off of the less fit, since their genes ‘polluted’ the gene pool, weakening all (though perhaps they added to the diversity of the gene pool)
This is not a part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is descriptive of events in biological systems. It cannot assign values of “good” or “bad ” to events.
I believe that this may be the source of your misconception. You are apparently under the mistaken impression that the theory of evolution inherently employs value judgements of events of “good” or “bad”. This is not the case. That a population subset “survives” by having their genetic traits represented in greater frequency in subsequent generations is merely a factual event according to the theory of evolution. It is neither “good” nor “bad” according to the theory; such a value judgement must be derived from a separate philosophy entirely. As such, belief that such an event is “good”, “bad”, or carries no inherent “value” may vary amongst different individuals who all accept the validity of the theory of evolution.– humans arose like other animals, and are, biologically speaking, just like the animals
Actually, biology itself addresses humans as only animals.Now, here’s the steps that are easily taken, and are taken by those like Dawkins and Hitler (I had to mention them in the same breath ;)
1. Science places no extra value on humans over animals, since it does not make such judgements
This is correct. Science cannot be used to derive value judgements of any kind. Ultimately, any value judgement must be derived from a non-scientific philosophy.2. Since humans evolved from apes, it stands to reason that some humans may be more evolved than others – that is, more fit
Please explain “more evolved”, and explain why a subset of a population that is “more evolved” is “more fit”. While it may be true that one subset of the homo sapiens species may have physiological traits that confer a reproductive advantage over another subset, such an advantage may be specific to one type of environment. For example, consider two hypothetical subsets of homo sapiens, labelled subset “A” and subset “B”. Assume that subset “A” has a genetic trait that lends itself to reduced risk of a specific disease (skin cancer) but that also increases the melanin in the skin. Subset “B” does not have the genetic disease resistance and, as a result, also has a lower melanin count.
In an environment that receives very little sunlight, subset “A” will be at a disadvantage over subset “B”, because the high melanin count inhibits Vitamin D synthesis and the reduced sunlight levels can create a deficiency. However, in an environment that receives a great deal of sunlight, subset “A”‘s can synthesize sufficient Vitamin D and their increased resistance to skin cancer confers an advantage over subset “B”.
Which population is “more evolved”, or “more fit” than the other, and why?3. Nature eliminates the less fit, which benefits the species in general
To say that the species “benefits” is misleading. Rather, the elimination — through reduced successful reproduction — of the “less fit” results in a genetic shift for the population. However, this may not always be for the benefit of the species; it is possible that such a reduction in the gene pool can ultimately lead a species to extinction.4. If we help nature along by scientifically determining who is less fit, this is good for humanity as a whole
You are again asserting a value judgement. Evolution does not imply or make value judgements. Whether or not an action is “good” for humanity is a judgement made outside of the realm of science.
Additionally, suggesting that nature can be “helped along” suggests that there exists an inherent goal or direction. This is also not the case. It is not the “intention” of “nature” to eliminate a subset of a population. Rather, this elimination is simply a consequence of that subset being unable to breed in sufficient numbers to maintain their genetic characteristics in future generations.
Moreover, you are suggesting that it is possible to “scientifically determine” which subset of homo sapiens is “less fit”. Please explain, exactly, how such a scientific determination is made, then explain how eliminating that subset is “good for humanity as a whole”.5. Since humans are really just animals, killing off weak humans is like killing off weak cattle to help maintain the herd.
You are now confusing the fact that, from a biological standpoint that humans are “just animals” with the assertion that humans are “just animals” from an absolute standpoint. This is not rational. That humans are biologically animals does not mean that humans do not have any inherent value or meaning that cannot be established through biology.See how easy that flows? A 10-year old could make that connection, but evolutionists can’t because they have an emotional investment in evolution as part of their worldview. It HAS to be true and OK.
As I have stated, your explanation shows a lack of understanding of evolution. Specifically, you are under the impression that the theory of evolution employs value judgements, when in fact it does not.What scientific principle would you use, then to discourage sterilization of the weak and infirm, or even their incineration in ovens? This all seems very logical, even moral from the big picture.
As no scientific theory, including the theory of evolution, addresses the subject of morality, it is impossible to derive any conclusions regarding whether any given action is “moral” from the theory of evolution. Additionally, it is impossible to appeal purely to science to discourage any action, because — as I have previously stated — science is merely an attempt to explain the universe. It cannot be employed to proscribe or prescribe any action. Any declaration that an event, such as genocide, is either inherently moral or immoral must ultimately appeal to a non-scientific philosophy. Note that this means that an assertion that genocide is a justifiable act must itself be derived from a non-scientific philosophy.
I will note, however, that artificially reducing the genetic variance of a population can ultimately lead to the extinction of the species, should the environmental conditions change and the existing reduced gene pool be unable to adapt to the new conditions.Let me ask you. How would you determine the fitness of a human? Whatever measure you use, I would argue that you could then conclude that such individuals were less fit, and therefore, less evolved. Then, using the logic above, you could try to justify helping evolution along, for the good of humanity.
As I have said, “fitness” is relative to environmental conditions and thus it is not possible to define one subset of homo sapiens as absolutely more “fit” than another. Additionally, whether or not an event is “good” for humanity is a value judgement made outside of the realm of science, and thus not a part of the theory of evolution.
Finally, your assertion that the “less fit” are “less evolved” is puzzling. What, exactly, do you mean by “less evolved”?Somehow, Hitler decided that they were genetic mongrels putrefying the human gene pool. I don’t believe it, but Hitler did. And he was being logical about the application of Darwinism, even if his criteria for choosing what was fit or not was questionable.
If his criteria for choosing what was “fit” was not rational, then his actions were not rational in any sense, including in the light of the theory of evolution. Moreover, as I have pointed out, your attempt to logically link the theory of evolution to genocide relies upon at least one fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.As I have said, this alone does not PROVE that evolution is not true. It’s incompatibility with the fossil record, common rules of genetics, lack of testability, and other scientific objections (like it’s statistical impossibility) are evidence enough that is is unlikely.
Please explain the alleged incompatibility with the fossil record, its incompatibility with the common rules of genetics and its lack of testability. Please reference the specific statistical calculations to which you refer, and make sure that those calculations are based upon justified premises.

"Furthermore, Darwin was one of the least racist men of the Victorian age. He was an abolitionist who abhorred slavery. He understood, and his work demonstrated, that all of humanity had a mutual common ancestry — a powerful argument against racism. (Perhaps this is why "Prinzipelles zur Säuberung der öffentlichen Bücherein" (1935) [Principles for the Cleansing of Public Libraries] banned Origin of Species to be committed to Nazi bonfires.)"

I'm going to remember this for future conversations with creationists.

As Darwin himself suggested that such an implementation is “evil”, however, it is not likely that he himself saw such an implementation as logical.
Well, let’s just say that he saw it as likely – likely enough to mention it clearly.Then please explain how, logically, races can be identified as “inferior” based solely upon the conclusions of the theory of evolution, without appealing to any other, unrelated, beliefs or views.
Ask Darwin himself how he believed that Negroes were somewhere on the evolutionary scale between Caucaisans and baboons.I will note again that Darwin was not himself suggesting any course of action; rather, he was predicting the outcome of events that he had observed
I agree. The claim I am making is that Darwin, though like many Caucasians of his day, was probably a racist, a western imperialist, did not encourage eugenics, but was predicting, or better said, extending his theory into social policy, predicting how it might be applied by the unethical.
He made an unsupported claim that this should not happen because ‘sympathy’ is probably selected for, so such cruelties would not advance human evolution. But that’s just a hopeful monster to save evolutio from its obvious application of eugenics.Please explain how the theory of evolution suggests that any action should be taken for someone’s “own good”, “the good of their children” or “the good of mankind”. Please also provide an infallible method for determining a predisposition for genetic disorder that results in no false positives or negatives.
Again, I am not making these claims, but I believe that they are easily derived from Darwinian thought. All you have to do is read the words of Darwin himself to see how HE made these conclusions.
As far as infallible methods – first, I do not make these claims, but men like Hitler do. Second, infallibility is not part of science, only religion :). In science, you deal with probability. If I see an inherited sickness in many generations of a certain family or group, I might conclude that they contain a gene that ought to be eliminated.if you cannot demonstrate all of the above, then your suggestion is not rational within the context of the theory of evolution and your claim that it is logical within the context of the theory of evolution is false.
Hey, I think evolution itSELF is irrational. But basically, you seem to be trying to cleanse evolution of its guilt in the case of Social Darwinism and eugenics – that is, if one can’t make a logical case for connecting and applying Darwinism to Social Darwinism, then Darwinism is ‘not guilty.’ Correct?
I would say that (a) you don’t need infallible test, just high correlations to ‘justify’ eugenics using evolution as your reasoning, (b) the relationship is clear enough that Darwin clearly discussed it, (c) history shows that racists, imperialists, and eugenicists like Hitler used evolution, rightly or wrongly, to support their existing biases.
While Darwin himself may be ‘not guilty’ of these crimes, Darwinism most certainly played right into these ideologies without modification (pun intended).
And by extension, as I have said, the fact that it integrates do easily with these heinous ideologies, is one indicator that it might be false. I think this is a perfectly logical and reasonable way to begin evaluating an idea’s merit.Please justify this assertion, and explain its relevance to your thesis.
Um, no, I am tired of your questions. I am merely saying that one with evolutionary thinking could easily make such claims, and in some sense, be congruent with evolutionary reasoning. I personally do not believe these things because I do NOT believe as Darwin did, for instance, that Negroes are less evolved than whites.Please note that Charles Darwin’s opinions are not the final word on the theory of evolution.
Naturally not. But again, this is why I focus on Darwinism, not evolution, though making a distinction is really academic, since they are kissing cousins.Note that Darwin’s opinions do not form the entirety of the theory of evolution;
I am glad to see that you are willing to disagree with St. Darwin (I mean, his only academic degree was in Theology).If you believe that Darwin did not condemn eugenics, then you have clearly not read the works of Charles Darwin.
Regardless of his opinion of such things, the fact that they flow logically and almost inevitably from his theory is witnessed by both history and his own writings. To deny such, I think, is really just defending your faith.It is illogical to consider distaste of an implication for a scientific theory when evaluating its validity.
First, we are not talking about distaste, we are talking about integration with ethical, moral, and practical falsehoods.
Second, while exploring the impact of an idea is not the only epistemological method, it is a worthy one, part of one’s arsenal for vetting ideas.It is irrational to conclude that a scientific theory is a “misunderstanding of how reality works” because it results in “mistakes and losses” when applied to social policy.
Well, first of all, as I said, I think evolution disagrees with the scientific evidences, first and foremost. The fact that it has contributed nothing to science or medicine that can not be accounted for by using basic scientific method, and the fact that it has in many ways hindered science, is only compounded by it’s easy integration with eugenics, racism, atheism, and imperialism.Scientific theories are merely attempts to explain observations within the natural universe. They are not attempts to define coherent social policy,
As I said, all truth should be integratable into a larger grid of truth, since all reality is connected. The social science implications of Darwinism are too big to ignore, and I do believe that they are important in evaluating the scientific validity, since in fact, Darwinism is so poorly evidenced by science, and most evolutionary supporters couldn’t even come up with conditions under which evolution might be false.
You don’t buy this line of evaluation, that’s fine. I think it reasonable. I think you are defending your faith, not your logic.the mistaken impression that the theory of evolution inherently employs value judgments of events of “good” or “bad”…such a value judgment must be derived from a separate philosophy entirely.
Listen, ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ translate into ‘preservation and continuation of the species’ v. ‘eventual death.’ In human terms, the first is ‘good’ and the second is ‘bad.’ While Darwinism might not intend this interpretation, it is inevitable, which again, is why Darwinism has been so influential in eugenics, but in the growing field of genetic enhancement and ‘purification’ of the genome. Such philosophies are not ‘entirely separate,’ but flow effortlessly and logically from Darwinism. It can’t be helped, even if Darwinophiles hate that inference.You are now confusing the fact that, from a biological standpoint that humans are “just animals” with the assertion that humans are “just animals” from an absolute standpoint. This is not rational. That humans are biologically animals does not mean that humans do not have any inherent value or meaning that cannot be established through biology.
Like it or not, people DO this, and not just because they are being illogical or unreasonable, but because they understand that disciplines to not stand in ideological isolation like you want them to, they are integrated. You may rightly claim all day that biology makes no such claims on the value of humans and animals, yet that application will be made, and I believe logically so.As I have stated, your explanation shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
This is the claim of every evolutionist who wants to claim the scientific purity and isolation of his ideas from the rest of reality. I understand the impact and logical applications of Darwinism both in and outside of biology, and why such applications may be logically made, and with horrific results.
Evolutionists would like to think that this is merely a misapplication of the theory, but they are mistaken – such things flow from the fact that evolution is a falsehood, and is bearing the fruit of falsehood, which is death.Moreover, as I have pointed out, your attempt to logically link the theory of evolution to genocide relies upon at least one fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.
I get your point, but disagree. I think YOUR misunderstanding is that somehow evolutionary theory is some isolated thing that can live without integrating with the rest of science, logic, and history. You see that when it does, it produces bad things. Why can’t you see, then, that it’s quality WITHIN science is also dubious? Belief.Please explain the alleged incompatibility with the fossil record, its incompatibility with the common rules of genetics and its lack of testability. Please reference the specific statistical calculations to which you refer, and make sure that those calculations are based upon justified premises.
I will later find such references. Thanks for posting, though.

I think YOUR misunderstanding is that somehow evolutionary theory is some isolated thing that can live without integrating with the rest of science, logic, and history.
Scientific theories are neutral. Do you blame Marie Curie for Chernobyl because of her pioneering work in radioactivity?

Scientific theories are neutral. Do you blame Marie Curie for Chernobyl because of her pioneering work in radioactivity?
Well, strictly speaking, scientific FACT is neutral. But Darwinism is really a theory of origins (hence his book titles), which delves into the meta-narratives that people use to understand the meaning of life, which is why it is so heartily defended by its followers.
In many ways, I think darwinism is different from other theories. For instance, have you ever heard of Social Newtonianism? Social Keplerism? Social Listerianism?
Let's pretend we could make those up. Perhaps Listerianism would promote human social health via 'disinfecting humanity.' Perhaps that could be a type of eugenic world view too. But somehow, that doesn't happen. Why?
I don't know, but that's a good question.

Well, strictly speaking, scientific FACT is neutral. But Darwinism is really a theory of origins (hence his book titles), which delves into the meta-narratives that people use to understand the meaning of life, which is why it is so heartily defended by its followers.
The theory of evolution — which you continue to dishonestly refer to as "Darwinism" — is an attempt to explain the process by which extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry. It addresses no other "origins", and any attempt to use the theory to derive a "meaning of life" is a misapplication of the theory, thus any conclusions derived from such an endeavour woud be inherently irrational and non-scientific. Any claim that the theory of evolution logically leads to those non-scientific conclusions is founded either in ignorance or dishonesty. There is no other possible explanation for such a claim.

Any claim that the theory of evolution logically leads to those non-scientific conclusions is founded either in ignorance or dishonesty. There is no other possible explanation for such a claim.
Again, this is something that is being supported and proported by people with their own set of preconceived biases and using information that matches their own set of biases to make their case.
– S

Any claim that the theory of evolution logically leads to those non-scientific conclusions is founded either in ignorance or dishonesty. There is no other possible explanation for such a claim.
If I were playing your polemical game, I would say "prove it."

Are you a creationist, Silver?
Cin, No, I am not. I am pointing out that those that are clamor for information that supports their own set of biases that believe in it.
There is no such thing as an unbiased view. Creationists are no different. They seek information that comes close to their pre-defined notion of reality (personal bias) without giving equal time to oposing views.
– S

Well, let’s just say that he saw it as likely – likely enough to mention it clearly.
This still does not mean that such actions are logical even in light of acceptance of the theory of evolution.Ask Darwin himself how he believed that Negroes were somewhere on the evolutionary scale between Caucaisans and baboons.
You have made the assertion that such a conclusion is logical in light of the acceptance of the theory of evolution. As such, it is your responsibility to show that Darwin’s belief was a logical conclusion derived from the theory, even if you do not accept that the theory is correct.I agree. The claim I am making is that Darwin, though like many Caucasians of his day, was probably a racist, a western imperialist, did not encourage eugenics, but was predicting, or better said, extending his theory into social policy, predicting how it might be applied by the unethical.
He made an unsupported claim that this should not happen because ‘sympathy’ is probably selected for, so such cruelties would not advance human evolution. But that’s just a hopeful monster to save evolutio from its obvious application of eugenics.
You have yet to demonstrate that the practice of eugenics is an “obvious application” of the theory of evolution.Again, I am not making these claims, but I believe that they are easily derived from Darwinian thought.
Then you should be able to show the logical derivation. All you have to do is read the words of Darwin himself to see how HE made these conclusions.
Then you should be able to quote Darwin’s words wherein he made such a logical conclusion.As far as infallible methods – first, I do not make these claims, but men like Hitler do. Second, infallibility is not part of science, only religion :).
If there is no infallible method for determining “inferiority” — assuming, of course, that such a concept could even be defined within the scope of the theory of evolution — then there is no possible rational justification for exterminating any subset of homo sapiens sapiens even if it is assumed that the theory of evolution suggests that forcibly eliminating “inferior” subsets is a justifiable and moral act (though I will again note that the theory suggests no such thing). As such, any claim that the theory of evolution can be used to rationally and logically justify either acts of genocide or the practice of eugenics is clearly false, and only ignorance or dishonesty could motivate an individual to claim otherwise. In science, you deal with probability. If I see an inherited sickness in many generations of a certain family or group, I might conclude that they contain a gene that ought to be eliminated.
You are demonstrating an application of the naturalistic fallacy. Evolution states that a gene that confers a reproductive disadvantage to those who possess is likely to be eliminated in successive generations. It is not logical to deduce from that fact that individuals who have such a gene “ought” to be eliminated. Such reasoning is fallacious and not rational, and it cannot be used to show that the theory of evolution justifies either eugenics or genocide.Hey, I think evolution itSELF is irrational.
This is not relevant. You have claimed that the theory of evolution leads to certain implications, yet you have demonstrated no rational or logical connection to such implications. But basically, you seem to be trying to cleanse evolution of its guilt in the case of Social Darwinism and eugenics – that is, if one can’t make a logical case for connecting and applying Darwinism to Social Darwinism, then Darwinism is ‘not guilty.’ Correct?
No. I am merely explaining that individuals who claim that “Social Darwinism” is in some way morally justified if the theory of evolution is valid are not employing logic in deriving such a conclusion.
Additionally, I have also explained, repeatedly, that referring to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism” demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, both in its statements and in the overall history of the theory.I would say that (a) you don’t need infallible test, just high correlations to ‘justify’ eugenics using evolution as your reasoning, (b) the relationship is clear enough that Darwin clearly discussed it, (c) history shows that racists, imperialists, and eugenicists like Hitler used evolution, rightly or wrongly, to support their existing biases.
The theory of evolution itself does not “justify” any action or behavior pattern. Any attempt to justify eugenics must rely upon an inherently non-scientific philosophy outside and independent of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can be used to predict the outcome of forcibly eliminating certain genetic subsets, however it can not be used to determine that such an action is justifiable, moral or correct.And by extension, as I have said, the fact that it integrates do easily with these heinous ideologies, is one indicator that it might be false. I think this is a perfectly logical and reasonable way to begin evaluating an idea’s merit.
Then you are appealing to consequence, and employing a logical fallacy. Your reasoning is not rational.Um, no, I am tired of your questions. I am merely saying that one with evolutionary thinking could easily make such claims, and in some sense, be congruent with evolutionary reasoning. I personally do not believe these things because I do NOT believe as Darwin did, for instance, that Negroes are less evolved than whites.
If you cannot show how the theory of evolution being correct would logically imply that any specific subset of homo sapiens sapiens is “less evolved” than another subset of the same species, then your argument is not logical. That Darwin, or any other individual, may have held such a belief is not itself a demonstration that such a belief is a logical implication of the theory.Naturally not. But again, this is why I focus on Darwinism, not evolution, though making a distinction is really academic, since they are kissing cousins.
Please explain the specific differences between “Darwinism” and evolution. Describe the fundamental differences in the processes of the two concepts.I am glad to see that you are willing to disagree with St. Darwin (I mean, his only academic degree was in Theology).
I was unaware that Charles Darwin had ever been canonized as a saint. Why do you refer to him with such a title?Regardless of his opinion of such things, the fact that they flow logically and almost inevitably from his theory is witnessed by both history and his own writings. To deny such, I think, is really just defending your faith.
I am “defending” nothing. Even if your attempts to show that eugenics and genocide can be logically justified if the theory of evolution is correct were not founded upon a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of evolution and of science in general, it would have no relevance as to the validity of the theory of evolution.First, we are not talking about distaste, we are talking about integration with ethical, moral, and practical falsehoods.
Please explain the “ethical, moral and practical falsehoods” to which you refer, and then show that they are false.Second, while exploring the impact of an idea is not the only epistemological method, it is a worthy one, part of one’s arsenal for vetting ideas.
It is irrational and illogical to reject an explanation within biology based upon a belief — whether correct or incorrect — that the explanation could be used to justify acts that you find distasteful.Well, first of all, as I said, I think evolution disagrees with the scientific evidences, first and foremost.
I am aware that you are fundamentally ignorant of the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence for evolution. However, your refusal to address such evidence does not negate its existence. The fact that it has contributed nothing to science or medicine that can not be accounted for by using basic scientific method, and the fact that it has in many ways hindered science, is only compounded by it’s easy integration with eugenics, racism, atheism, and imperialism.
Your suggestion that the theory of evolution has “contributed nothing to science or medicine” is demonstrably false. Your claim that it “integrates” with eugenics, racism or imperialism is wholly undemonstrated by any rational argument. your claim that evolution integrates with “atheism” is fundamentally meaningless; the same could be said of all scientific theories.As I said, all truth should be integratable into a larger grid of truth, since all reality is connected. The social science implications of Darwinism are too big to ignore, and I do believe that they are important in evaluating the scientific validity, since in fact, Darwinism is so poorly evidenced by science, and most evolutionary supporters couldn’t even come up with conditions under which evolution might be false.
Please justify your assertion that alleged social implications of the theory of evolution are useful in evaluating the validity of the theory. Assume that it is demonstrated that the theory of evolution, if true, logically implies that all black individuals are “inferior” in some way to individuals whose genetic heritage can be traced to southeast Asia. Show that such a demonstration would lend credence to the claim that the theory of evolution is false.Listen, ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ translate into ‘preservation and continuation of the species’ v. ‘eventual death.’
This is also not correct. That an individual is “unfit” merely means that the genetic information of the individual is less likely to be represented in future generations. This may not necessarily mean the end of the entire species, however. Additionally, factors that render a specific genetic makeup as “fit” or “unfit” are often relative to specific environmental conditions, such that a “fit” organism may be “unfit” in a different environment, and vice-versa.
I note that I previously asked you to apply your understanding of the theory of evolution to determine which of two subsets of homo sapiens sapiens could be considered “more fit” than the other, given a set of known circumstances. Are you unable to answer that inquiry? Note that acceptance of the theory of evolution is not required to address the inquiry; my question relates to how the theory of evolution would lead to such an evaluation, regardless of whether or not you would personally agree with such an evaluation. In human terms, the first is ‘good’ and the second is ‘bad.’
This is not a scientific evaluation. Whether or not a species continues to exist has no value assignment of “good” or “bad” within the context of science, even if that species is homo sapiens sapiens. Additionally, as I have pointed out, your previous premise is incorrect. While Darwinism might not intend this interpretation, it is inevitable, which again, is why Darwinism has been so influential in eugenics, but in the growing field of genetic enhancement and ‘purification’ of the genome. Such philosophies are not ‘entirely separate,’ but flow effortlessly and logically from Darwinism. It can’t be helped, even if Darwinophiles hate that inference.
Such an inference requires an appeal to the “is-ought” fallacy, which is inherently illogical.Like it or not, people DO this, and not just because they are being illogical or unreasonable, but because they understand that disciplines to not stand in ideological isolation like you want them to, they are integrated. You may rightly claim all day that biology makes no such claims on the value of humans and animals, yet that application will be made, and I believe logically so.
If the application is made, then it requires the application of a non-scientific philosophy. As such, claiming that such a conclusion is drawn solely from the theory of evolution is not honest, as an individual of a different philosophy may draw a different conclusion even if they accept the validity of the theory of evolution. That different individuals who accept the theory of evolution as valid can still come to differing conclusions regarding the value of human life suggests that your claim that the theory of evolution has direct implications regarding the value of human life is not correct.This is the claim of every evolutionist who wants to claim the scientific purity and isolation of his ideas from the rest of reality. I understand the impact and logical applications of Darwinism both in and outside of biology, and why such applications may be logically made, and with horrific results.
Have you not considered that you actually do not understand the theory of evolution, and that your conclusions are actually drawn from a false premise, or do you believe yourself incapable of error regarding your understanding of the theory?

Creationists are no different. They seek information that comes close to their pre-defined notion of reality (personal bias) without giving equal time to oposing views.
So, what you are saying is, no one can claim being right because they are biased? I think you are over generalizing.
Good creationists admit that there are significant problems within their theory, questions to be answered. However, evolutionists live under the vain self-deception that science has proved their point, when it clearly has not!
Again, while we all have biases, good thinkers and scientists can admit it, try to counter it, and look at things from the opposing viewpoint, even if they disagree.
And being convinced is not necessarily a bias.

It is not logical to deduce from that fact that individuals who have such a gene "ought" to be eliminated.
You say it is not logical. No proof will convince you. I have tried to show in many ways how one could reach those conclusions, and they would be logically consistent. You disagree with one of the steps, I am sure.
But your protests about some absolute proof are ridiculous, esp. in light of how it has played out in history. While your understanding of evolution may excuse it from such obvious application in some purist, ivory tower sense, such a pure ideological atmosphere exists only in fantasy.
In reality, the connection is obvious, simple, and even if it is some slight esoteric 'misunderstanding' of evolution, it was clear enough for Darwin to mention it, for the racists, imperialists, and eugenicists of history to employ it readily and easily, and it is obvious to all except those who bow at the altar of evolutionary thought and can't stand the sullying of their virgin, who is really a whore to the evil ideologies of man, and a perverter of true science.
No more logical derivations or proofs will come from me for now. If what I have provided is not good enough for you, you may sit comfortably telling yourself you are right all you like.
But IMO, evolution will one day be placed where it belongs, on the wrong side of history, along with its cousins of eugenics (also a type of science), racism, atheism, and the devaluing of human life.

So, what you are saying is, no one can claim being right because they are biased? I think you are over generalizing.
Nope. Not even overgeneralizing. Things that are not scienifically verifiable and repeatable by multiple sources including those that opose your view is open to biased adoption by those with the bias.
So, in your case, you cannot claim to be right. You are biased by your own religous views in favor of ID, seek information that supports that bias, but never point to scientific and repeatable proof from the other side opposing ID that actually says you are right. Again, this is a case of failing to give equal time and equal access to all sides to make your case.
I think this is a case of you simply thinking you are open to discussion and giving equal time, but merely being closed to others and seeking out those that support your bias. It is a self-replicating virus that you have and I am not referring to your religious and ID beliefs.
– S

"But IMO, evolution will one day be placed where it belongs, on the wrong side of history, along with its cousins of eugenics (also a type of science), racism, atheism, and the devaluing of human life."

"Cousins"? Eugenics, racism, atheism, and devaluing human life all predate the theory of natural selection by millenia. Eugenics was written about as far back as Plato's <cite>Republic</cite>. Racism and devaluing human life are at least as old as the Torah. And there've been atheists since the day men first invented gods.
It seems to me, those who deny the mass of evidence for evolution are already on the wrong side of history, just as the Christians who sicced the Inquisition on Galileo are on the wrong side of history for denying heliocentrism. Science works, seeker. Time for your religion to evolve, again.

>> ROBIN: Eugenics, racism, atheism, and devaluing human life all predate the theory of natural selection by millenia.
yes they do, but darwinism gave scientific validity to eugenics, and fit these predispositions perfectly. The point is not that they are related by intellectual origins (pun intended), but merely related as ideas in general. They certainly do not conflict!
>> ROBIN: And there've been atheists since the day men first invented gods.
Indeed, but again, I think you miss my point – atheism depends on Darwinism for it's own creation myth, and due to atheism's a priori commitment to naturalism, darwinism is a perfect fit.
>> ROBIN: It seems to me, those who deny the mass of evidence for evolution are already on the wrong side of history
And that is the problem. No such "mass of evidence" exists. It is a collection of spotty data, coupled with some really elegant theorizing, grounded in little more than wishful thinking. There is literally very little "there" there.
>> ROBIN: Christians who sicced the Inquisition on Galileo
Actually, you seem to have bought into the Hollywood version of the story, as well as the popular myth that Christianity and science have been and are necessarily at odds. The actual history of Galileo's run-ins with the church vary markedly from your impressions above.
SeeBias in Written History
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
>> ROBIN: Science works, seeker. Time for your religion to evolve, again.
Yes, science works within the limits of what it is good for. Faith also works. No evolution needed, since man's fallen nature (and intellect) have not changed, nor has his need for God since the original rebellion of Adam.

@danielg
OK, I should not have written "the Christians who sicced the Inquisition on Galileo are on the wrong side of history for denying heliocentrism", when it appears that Pope Urban VIII maliciously instigated Galileo's persecution for political and personal motives. That doesn't put Urban VIII on the right side of history either, but still, mea culpa for my careless words there.
Nevertheless, the Inquisition is absolutely on the wrong side of history, and of science, for charging and convicting Galileo for suspicion of the heresy that the Earth was not the center of the universe and moves, and requiring him to abjure the theory.

No such “mass of evidence” exists. It is a collection of spotty data, coupled with some really elegant theorizing, grounded in little more than wishful thinking. There is literally very little “there” there.